Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=497622 --- Comment #13 from Tim Fenn <fenn@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-07-06 17:50:14 EDT --- (In reply to comment #12) > Hmm, it seems that aqua is a customized version of PMG as per > http://cardon.wustl.edu/MediaWiki/index.php/APBS . > > In that case I'm really not sure what should be done. Many possibilities come > to mind > > - package aqua separately [if it has development that is clearly separate from > apbs] > - create a aqua subpackage [development as part of apbs but still other apps > might use it] > - don't package aqua at all [an incompatible fork of the PMG library that is > used nowhere else] Oh, this is getting fun. I'll go with option 2, since Nathan seems to have taken over the aqua development anyway. It looks like this will also be necessary with pmgZ, as again - it seems to primarily be developed as part of apbs, not really its own independent library. Only maloc can really be its "own" library - Mike Holst still manages that. Here's a shot at an rpm for pmgZ - I can't seem to find much in the way of guidelines for subpackages in this sort of instance - should independent package requests be made for each (with blockers added for this package)? Spec URL: http://www.stanford.edu/~fenn/packs/pmgz.spec SRPM URL: http://www.stanford.edu/~fenn/packs/apbs-pmgz-1.1.0-1.20090706svn1360.fc11.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review